There's some confusion about how new the D614G mutation is. I'm going to use data on @GISAID visualized by @CovidCg to answer this question. The first time it appeared in China was Jan 23, 2020. So this mutation occurred pretty early on in the outbreak before travel restrictions.
When+where did D614G first get detected in Europe? It's not possible to tell using GISAID alone because many countries did not sequence virus isolates and deposit data till later in the pandemic. However, you can see that there are EU countries with D614G even in Jan.
It was only after January that travel restrictions started being sporadically imposed on China by other countries but it was too late because SARS2 (including D614G variants), as we now know, was already widespread. thinkglobalhealth.org/article/travel…
Had to remove the UK from the "Compare Locations" analysis in Europe because of how many sequences they've uploaded - just a tsunami that washes out the sequences from other countries. The G614 variants, in blue, are among the earliest sequences found in the UK, including in Jan.
Other European countries saw similar trends as well - D614G was among their earliest sequenced virus isolates and quickly became the more prevalent mutation at that point in the Spike. E.g., Germany shown here, G614 in blue, D614 in grey
Netherlands, G614 variants shown in blue, D614 in grey. Both present in the country since the beginning of the detected outbreak there.
What about countries that were able to curb the spread of COVID? Was it that they were dealt an easier hand of less transmissible SARS2? This is Singapore, D614G mutation was also detected in February, similar time as several European countries. Strangely, D614G did not dominate.
Visit covidcg.org to play around with the data yourself :) This is Taiwan, another country with exceedingly few COVID cases. They detected D614G as early as March but half a year later their country still hasn't exploded with COVID.
South Korea also saw the D614G mutation in March. In both the "Compare SNVs" (left) and "Compare Lineages" (right) mode, you can see how there were distinct waves of the virus in their country.
Japan also saw D614G early - at the end of January. It's by no means a new mutant of SARS2 for many countries. covidcg.org
Even across Africa, D614G has been around since the beginning. Worth pointing out again that it is not just 1 variant or strain of SARS2 that carries D614G. Many distinct SARS2 variants carry the same G614 mutation on top of several other mutations.
One particularly interesting country is Australia. At first glance it looks like D614G (blue) is dominating again. But turns out the new wave is marked more specifically by an S477N (pink) spike mutation. D614G+S477N were detected in Australia in late Jan. covidcg.org
New Zealand, another country that's done a phenomenal job limiting the spread of COVID. D614G has also been there since the beginning. The country was able to bring the new daily cases of COVID down to mostly single digits by late April.
How about states in the US? State name at top left corner of each picture. G614 in blue; D614 in grey.
US states started seeing D614G by early March. This was after China travel restrictions had been implemented early Feb, but EU travel (conferences!) was still ongoing. The Mar announcement of restrictions caused Americans to stampede back from EU (where D614G was rampant) to US.
“We closed the front door with the China travel ban,” New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) said last month as officials began to grasp the magnitude of the failure. In waiting to cut off travel from Europe, he said, “we left the back door wide open.” washingtonpost.com/world/national…
For more ways to use our free and awesome resource @covidcgcovidcg.org please check out our new preprint: biorxiv.org/content/10.110… enabled by @gisaid data contributed by hundreds of different labs around the world.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Accidentally swore and got bleeped on my live interview with On Point @MeghnaWBUR while discussing why lab #OriginOfCovid must be investigated and why scientists must not lie or obfuscate the truth for political reasons. wbur.org/onpoint/2024/0…
@MeghnaWBUR Meghna did an excellent job putting the arguments of natural #OriginOfCovid proponents to me so I could refute them directly in the interview.
The scientific evidence does not support a double spillover of the virus at the Wuhan market.
I respect Dr Fauci's decades of service in gov. Being in charge during a pandemic is no small challenge & no one can lead for so long without making mistakes. However, it needs to be said that Dr Fauci has not surrounded himself with wise & honest people regarding #OriginOfCovid
These are the virologists & experts he trusted on #OriginOfCovid
In their private messages in early 2020, they mocked other virologists for not being able to predict their own lab leaks & misled a @nytimes journalist asking about a potential lab origin.
Dr Bob Garry admitted we don't know what viruses were studied in Wuhan labs. The papers he cited in support of natural #OriginOfCovid have been thoroughly refuted (see below).
A research-related #OriginOfCovid is plausible and even considered more likely by some experts and US intelligence agencies. goodjudgment.com/wp-content/upl…
Available data on early cases & market samples do not distinguish between a superspreader event versus spillover.
Even Dr Ralph Baric who collaborated with Wuhan scientists said the “market was a conduit for expansion of the disease. Is that where it started? I don’t think so.”
@COVIDSelect Baric said he forgot about the Defuse proposal & did not mention it at the Feb 1 call.
I believe Baric sharing Defuse would've prevented the publication of Proximal Origin and the use of it to dismiss a lab #OriginOfCovid in US gov and to the public.
@COVIDSelect Baric also could've told them at the Feb 1 meeting that novel SARS-like viruses were being used in infection experiments at BSL2 at the Wuhan Institute of Virology aka the Wild West according to Jeremy Farrar.
Peter Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance testified he didn't know Wuhan Institute of Virology bred 🦇, studied pangolin samples, engineered viruses without leaving a trace, and continued to collect viruses after 2015.
So how does he know they didn't cause Covid?
Daszak said he didn't know if WIV had started experiments described in the Defuse proposal and 🚨had not even asked them🚨.
He only had virus sequences from samples collected up to 2015. He believed that the WIV would've shared more sequences from 2016-2019 if they had them.
Reminder: EcoHealth Alliance still has not shared the sequences for the WIV's 220 SARS-CoV-1-like viruses (2022 interview) or 180 unique SARS-like viruses in their prior work not yet characterized for spillover potential (2018 proposal).
Those dismissing a lab #OriginOfCovid have had to make numerous concessions over the past 4 years.
We now know Wuhan scientists conducted risky experiments with novel SARS-like viruses at low biosafety & planned in 2018 to create viruses with the traits of the Covid-19 virus.
We also know the data on early cases & Huanan market shared by Chinese scientists do not shed light on #OriginOfCovid
Proponents of natural origin continue to argue that it is the totality of evidence that supports their hypothesis but this could be said for lab origin as well.
The latest defense for a natural #OriginOfCovid is that, if a lab leak had occurred, the Wuhan scientists would have acted all suspicious and essentially given the game away, thereby putting themselves, their colleagues & their families in immediate and deadly peril.